Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Duncan

1st Pres. and NAACP

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Without knowing how to process it (was it a mistake, was it of God, why were righteous blacks denied blessings they were actively seeking while whites weren’t?) it’s hard to let it go. 

 

Understood. But it was resolved 40 years ago and no individual is eternally denied any blessing that they individually qualify for. There are indeed many points involved but one thing that I think helps is knowing that there were people such as David O. McKay who wanted to lift the ban but felt that the Lord was telling them the time had not come yet. That means that there was someone who had not created the ban who wished it could be lifted but was told it wasn't time yet. So... while the historical beginnings of the ban are vague the fact that subsequent prophets felt against their own wishes that it couldn't just be lifted willy-nilly to me shows that it was much more than just a man-made thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It seems like all of us faithful LDS would have liked the fake apology to be true.  Wouldn't that have been much better of an announcement as we near the As One celebration? An apology is long overdue...

President Nelson looked like a true prophet in the fake announcement placing the importance of making things right over the pride of the church leaders.  Such an announcement would have gone a long way toward credibility of church leaders with the members of the church. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

It seems like all of us faithful LDS would have liked the fake apology to be true.  Wouldn't that have been much better of an announcement as we near the As One celebration? An apology is long overdue...

President Nelson looked like a true prophet in the fake announcement placing the importance of making things right over the pride of the church leaders.  Such an announcement would have gone a long way toward credibility of church leaders with the members of the church. 

I don't believe President Nelson ever did anything to apologize for in this regard. And if the ban came from God then what do Church leaders (especially Church leaders who had nothing to do with the ban) have to apologize for?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

It seems like all of us faithful LDS would have liked the fake apology to be true.

You certainly don't speak for me or, I'm quite certain (based on numerous past discussions), my black housemate on this topic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a little in awe of the time and energy it took to write all that.  It wasn't for nothing.  He may have missed his mark by a mile, but all that doesn't come out of simply "prankster" energy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Zilch

 

“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” D&C 1: 38

 

i don’t expect apologies from God

You still think the Priesthood Ban was from God?

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Calm said:
8 hours ago, bluebell said:

If there were no malicious motives then the people who did this are incredibly dumb.  They should have known how cruel this would be, especially to black members.  One member who spoke up on Twitter said this-

"Got the official word that this isn’t real. I normally don’t cuss on here but **** the person(s) who did this. They’re testing to see how they’ll respond. In terms of change in the LDS Church, one of the more effective strategies is to draw a big spotlight on it.

So the LDS Church can a.) cancel the meeting b.) revise whatever they were going to say c.) respond to this and give a statement or d.) pretend like this didn’t happen and give a statement. What this person didn’t take into account is that real people are invested in this.

And if the LDS Church doesn’t respond in the way they want, then what? There are black members who’ve been wanting them to say this for DECADES. So your brilliant plan was to throw black folks’ emotions under the bus to MAYBE get the Church to react? That is some white savior BS.

So an announcement like that doesn’t just impact my methodology, it changes the way I think about this stuff on a spiritual level. I’ve spoken to black folks in tears because they thought it was real as well.
Whoever made this site didn’t care about any of that."

Facebook:

Quote

This little stunt you pulled is beyond vile. You are trash. Straight garbage. A flaming piece of racism wrapped in male white fragility. 

The fact that you would go out of your way to purposely hurt, and use African-American members of the LDS church in order to mock the church is pathetic and downright racist. 

African-American members of the church are not here to be used like pawns for your amusement. They are human beings, and have done nothing to you, for you to use them in this way.

You join a long list of white people who have used black bodies, black emotional, mental and physical health for their own sick and perverse pleasures. 

Why do people assume the person who did this was white?  Perhaps it was someone who was black trying to force the church's hand and showing the world how black people really feel about a lack of an apology.  

If you look at this objectively, what I see is nothing but joy and happiness coming from an apology by church leaders for past mistakes.  Is that so horrible?  Couldn't  a statement like "We believed God instituted the priesthood ban.  We apologize for the hurt and anguish so many have felt over this policy."  It is kind of mealy mouth.  But it is clear that many NEED an apology of some sorts.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Why do people assume the person who did this was white?  Perhaps it was someone who was black trying to force the church's hand and showing the world how black people really feel about a lack of an apology.  

His identity is known.

Share this post


Link to post

What a great day yesterday could have been. But no. What would have been the negative to offering such an apology yesterday?

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Calm said:

His identity is known.

Oh last I read is that no one knew who put up the web site.  I will check it out and try to find out more information.  

Just read the link that Tachenda put up.  

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

“We apologise for the Priesthood Ban. We’re sorry Leaders allowed cultural racism to influence Church policies and practices for 100 years. It was wrong. We exhort members to accept that the ban was not doctrinal and do all they can to ensure racism in any form does not have a place in our wards, families or hearts.”

What are the odds?

That would be nice, but I don't think we are going to hear that.  It just isn't good PR.  However, the following official statement was made about the matter:

Quote

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

What would have been the negative to offering such an apology yesterday?

Inaccuracy?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:
Quote

 “The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

Given the 1949 First Presidency statement claiming the ban as doctrine, that last sentence seems misleading.

Quote

August 17, 1949 

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." 


https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

How can an official statement made by the Prophet and First Presidency not represent Church doctrine?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You certainly don't speak for me or, I'm quite certain (based on numerous past discussions), my black housemate on this topic.

Since your black friend isn't here to speak for himself, maybe it's best just to speak for yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

“I felt confident people would see the headline and just glimpse at the article and the beginning of the article and accept it because it fulfilled their aspirations for the high ideals they have for the church,” Streeter said.

Man behind fake apology for LDS Church’s ‘history of racism’ says he wanted to start a discussion

He also showed (unwittingly?) at how the leadership of the Church are still holding on to the Priesthood Ban being really what God wanted, despite the essay “Race And The Priesthood”.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, JAHS said:

“I felt confident people would see the headline and just glimpse at the article and the beginning of the article and accept it because it fulfilled their aspirations for the high ideals they have for the church,” Streeter said.

Man behind fake apology for LDS Church’s ‘history of racism’ says he wanted to start a discussion

I wonder if Streeter is a member of the Church. If so, I wonder if behavior like this might warrant Church discipline. 

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Gray said:

Since your black friend isn't here to speak for himself, maybe it's best just to speak for yourself?

Why? How is this any different than any number of unverified anecdotes that are purveyed on this board day in and day out?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

He also showed (unwittingly?) at how the leadership of the Church are still holding on to the Priesthood Ban being really what God wanted, despite the essay “Race And The Priesthood”.

No his hoax hurt way more people than it is going to help. The church will not can not apologize for something that is so ingrained in the history and even scriptures of the church. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why? How is this any different than any number of unverified anecdotes that are purveyed on this board day in and day out?

It's a little unseemly to use an unnamed black friend to defend something like this. Especially repeatedly.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's a little unseemly to use an unnamed black friend to defend something like this. Especially repeatedly.

Here is what you said on the other thread about your Relief Society president allegedly having her “hopes raised and then dashed” due to the behavior of the “church hierarchy”: 

“She does. Her faith has been on really shaky ground for a while now, mostly due to concern for raising her daughter in the church.“ 

Consistent with your fussing at Hamba above, since your friend is not here, maybe it’s best you just speak for yourself. 

Why is it “unseemly” for Hamba to give an undocumented anecdote but not for you?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder if Streeter is a member of the Church. If so, I wonder if behavior like this might warrant Church discipline. 

Why do you care if he is disciplined or not?

Sometimes it seems you get an odd enjoyment when people you don't like are disciplined by Church leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder if Streeter is a member of the Church. If so, I wonder if behavior like this might warrant Church discipline. 

If I were his bishop it would, but then I am not his Bishop. A Trib article said he was an ex-Mormon:
"The hoax was the work of Jonathan Streeter, a former Mormon who lives in Texas and hosts the blog Thoughts on Things and Stuff under the pen name Thinker of Thoughts. 
Streeter said he had pondered what kind of statement the LDS Church might put out if it ever apologized for its past policies on race — and how he might write his own false apology as a thought-provoking parody."
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/05/17/no-the-mormon-church-did-not-apologize-for-having-a-history-of-racism/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...